Studies examining message framing effects on persuasion have produced mixed results. Some studies show positively framed messages, which specify attributes or benefits gained by using a product, to be more persuasive than negatively framed messages, which specify attributes or benefits lost by not using a product. Reverse outcomes have been obtained in other studies. The authors explore a theoretical explanation for such findings by investigating whether differences in the degree to which people engage in detailed message processing account for the mixed results. The findings support the view that positively framed messages may be more persuasive when there is little emphasis on detailed processing, but negatively framed messages may be more persuasive when detailed processing is emphasized.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AtkinCharles K. (1979), “Research Evidence on Mass Mediated Health Communication Campaigns,” in Communication Yearbook, Vol. 3, NimmoD., ed. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 655–68.
2.
BrockTimothy C., and ShavittSharon (1983), “Cognitive Responses in Advertising,” in Advertising and Consumer Psychology, PercyLarry, and WoodsideArch G., eds. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 91–116.
3.
BurgerJerry M., and BurnsLinda (1988), “The Illusion of Unique Invulnerability and the Use of Effective Contraception,”Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14 (June), 264–70.
4.
ChaikenShelly (1980), “Heuristic Versus Systematic Information Processing and the Use of Source Versus Message Cues in Persuasion,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39 (November), 752–6.
5.
ChaikenShelly, LibermanAkiva, and EaglyAlice H. (1989), “Heuristic and Systematic Information Processing Within and Beyond the Persuasion Context,” in Unintended Thought, UlemanJames S., and BarghJohn A., eds. New York: Guilford Press, 212–52.
6.
EdellJulie, and StaelinRichard (1983), “The Information Processing of Pictures in Print Advertisements,”Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (June), 45–61.
7.
FiskeSusan T. (1980), “Attention and Weight in Person Perception: The Impact of Negative and Extreme Behavior,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38 (June), 889–906.
8.
GreenwaldAnthony, and LeavittClark (1984), “Audience Involvement in Advertising: Four Levels,”Journal of Consumer Research, 11 (June), 581–92.
9.
KahnemanDaniel, and TverskyAmos (1979), “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk,”Econometrica, 47 (March), 263–91.
10.
KahnemanDaniel, and TverskyAmos (1982), “The Psychology of Preferences,”Scientific American, 246 (January), 162–70.
11.
KanouseDavid E. (1984), “Explaining Negativity Biases in Evaluation and Choice Behavior: Theory and Research,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 11, KinnearThomas C., ed. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 703–8.
12.
KardesFrank R. (1988), “Spontaneous Inference Processes in Advertising: The Effects of Conclusion Omission and Involvement on Persuasion,”Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (September), 225–33.
13.
KirschtJohn P. (1983), “Preventive Health Behavior: A Review of Research and Issues,”Health Psychology, 2 (Summer), 277–301.
14.
LauRichard (1985), “Two Explanations for Negativity Effects in Political Behavior,”American Journal of Political Science, 29 (February), 119–38.
15.
LevinIrwin P. (1987), “Associative Effects of Information Framing,”Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 25 (March), 85–6.
16.
LevinIrwin P., and GaethGary J. (1988), “Framing of Attribute Information Before and After Consuming the Product,”Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (December), 374–8.
17.
MeyerowitzBeth E., and ChaikenShelly (1987), “The Effect of Message Framing on Breast Self-Examination Attitudes, Intentions, and Behavior,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52 (March), 500–10.
18.
PettyRichard E., and CacioppoJohn T. (1983), “Central and Peripheral Routes to Persuasion: Application to Advertising,” in Advertising and Consumer Psychology, PercyLarry, and WoodsideArch, eds. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 3–23.
19.
PettyRichard E., CacioppoJohn T., and SchumannDavid (1983), “Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement,”Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (September), 135–46.
20.
PutoChristopher P. (1987), “The Framing of Buying Decisions,”Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (December), 301–15.
21.
QuailsWilliam J., and PutoChristopher P. (1989), “Organizational Climate and Decision Framing: An Integrated Approach to Analyzing Industrial Buying Decisions,”Journal of Marketing Research, 26 (May), 179–92.
22.
SternthalBrian, and Samuel CraigC. (1974), “Fear Appeals: Revisited and Revised,”Journal of Consumer Research, 1 (December), 22–34.
23.
SujanMita (1985), “Consumer Knowledge: Effects on Evaluation Strategies Mediating Consumer Judgments,”Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (June), 31–46.
24.
WeinbergerMarc G., AllenChris T., and DillonWilliam R. (1981), “Negative Information: Perspectives and Research Directions,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 8, MonroeKent, ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 398–404.
25.
WrightPeter (1974), “The Harassed Decision Maker: Time Pressures, Distractions, and the Use of Evidence,”Journal of Applied Psychology, 59 (October), 555–61.
26.
WrightPeter (1981), “Cognitive Responses to Mass Media Advocacy,” in Cognitive Responses in Persuasion, PettyRichard E., OstromThomas M., and BrockTimothy C., eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 263–82.
27.
WrightPeter, and WeitzBarton (1977), “Time Horizon Effects on Product Evaluation Strategies,”Journal of Marketing Research, 14 (November), 429–43.
